To think that the number of starburst you received at the
beginning of our class activity on last Thursday determined how wealthy you
would be in our mock capitalist society is admittedly quote absurd to imagine.
Although that was the case, it certainly had its purpose. We spent our class
learning about Capitalism and Socialism, and even though the idea of using
starburst sounds silly, it was a lot more helpful in explaining how the
societies worked than you would think.
Upon entering class, Ms. Bailey handed each of us either three or
ten starburst, thus determining your position in society. There were a lot less
people who ended up with ten, and a lot more of us who received only three (I
was one to receive only three). The reason for the difference in numbers was to
show how some people are born into more money than others. So few people were
given ten to demonstrate how there are so few people sharing such a great amount
of wealth, in our case starburst, in the upper class of societies, and how the
little money left had to be spread over a much larger amount of people. After
distribution, we were told we could play rock-paper-scissors with each other to
try and gain more starburst, this was to demonstrate how no matter your class,
you can gain or lose money. Trading ensued, and the class ended up figuring out
alternative ways to gain, such as stealing and begging. Through this, anyone
had a fair chance to gain or lose starburst. Then Ms. Bailey collected all of
our starburst, no matter how many we had gained or lost through trade, a
redistributed the starburst, each of us receiving three. This caused some rage,
mostly from the people who had worked hard to gain (or steal) starburst,
because they were now equal to all of the others, even though they worked hard
to be successful. The newfound equality of starburst among us was to
demonstrate a socialist society. I was personally really frustrated when the
candy was collected, because although I stole the majority of the candy I ended
up with, it was still hard work.
In the socrative seminar there were a lot
of great points made about both the activity, and about Capitalism and Socialism.
April had a simple, but very relatable comment on the redistribution of the
candy, which was: "If you're working hard for something and you become
successful, to have it all taken away just really sucks". I really
couldn't have said it better myself, and everyone seemed to agree that having
it all be equal wasn't fair to the more successful people in the class. There
was also a mutual agreement about socialism, being that it's a great system for
the poor and lazy because they're provided with an equal source of income without
much work required, but for the wealthy and hardworking it is very frustrating
that they receive the same amount of money as people who don't work half as
hard as them; coming to the conclusion that how the system is flawed. Socialism
allows for inactive members of a society to remain inactive and be rewarded for
it, and grants no real reward for those who work 3 times as hard and deserve 3
times as much income as everyone else. Julianne put it well, saying that
socialism "destroys natural competition", meaning, without social
classes there is not only no way for people to get ahead, but nothing for
anyone to aspire to be or have, thus creating lazy members of society. But,
Capitalism isn't perfect either. Julianne also said, "Capitalism is
intended for people with good intentions and working habits, but societies
don't always support that— the rich don't always help out the poor, and the
poor don't always work", which I again, couldn't agree more with.
Karl Marx, the father of Communism, and co-creator
of socialism, and Adam Smith, creator of Capitalism and the “Invisible Hand”
both had the poor of society in their best interests, but had very different
theories on how to help them. Marx believed that with Socialism economic
equality could be reached through the government’s complete ownership of
industry, meaning there was no free trade. Through Socialism Marx aimed for a
classless society, which seems great from the perspective of someone living in
poverty. If there were no classes and no one had more money than others, there
would be no more poverty; but this only works to a certain extent. Everyone
earning the same amount of money would mean that a Neurosurgeon would be paid
the same salary as a fry cook, which isn’t fair in the least bit. With that
idea in place, what motivation would one even have to become something as
important as a surgeon, if they would be paid the same money as someone working
half as hard as them? Socialism is great in the sense that poverty wouldn’t be
as big of a problem, but it creates a lazy society in which people won’t work
as hard to earn salary, because its equal to everyone else’s. But that doesn’t
mean Capitalism and the Invisible Hand theories aren’t just as flawed.
Smith’s idea of Capitalism would work perfectly in a completely
honest and good society, but those, unfortunately, do not exist. Capitalism is
the idea that there is private ownership of industry and freedom of competition,
or, in other words: people are born into the money that they’re born into, and
depending on how hard they work they will be able to change social classes.
But, it results in unequal economic classes and due to the greedy nature of
many humans, much poverty. Capitalism is made to work in an ideal society in
which the rich would help the poor, but that is very few times the case. The
Invisible Hand is also made for an ideal society, for it is made to work like
this: the people would govern themselves, if competition between companies
arose they would battle it out until one becomes more prominent, leaving the
other to find something different to market. This way the things people want
are produced with no excess, and the market grows. The problems with this
theory are that it would only work if people were all good and honest, and
there were unlimited supplies for people to move onto working with. It is very
ideal and unlikely to work, not only because of the said reasons, but also
because the economy could stall and it takes a very long time to reach
equilibrium in an economy.
I would have to say there isn’t one theory I like best. I would
say capitalism, but only if the society was perfect and all of the ideals in
Capitalism worked out. I feel like a blend of both Socialism and Capitalism
might be key, but just what that blend might be, I don’t have a clue. I kind of
liked what Ryan came up with in the Socrative Seminar, it was to give everyone
just enough money to live on, plus a little more. The extra money could be used
for anything, and with it, people could either get ahead or fall behind. There
would be social classes without complete poverty or absurd wealth. But, I also
disagree with that theory because I don’t think everyone should just
automatically get paid for being a part of society, only those who were ambitious
would rise up, and everyone else remaining stable yet somewhat lazy because
they could rely on the same amount of money to have all the time without
working too hard. So I guess my answer is I have no idea. Both work in theory,
but neither is really a GREAT solution, even though I prefer Capitalism to
Socialism.
